Friday, September 15, 2017

Know Your Propaganda – Straw Man – The Art of Misrepresentation

Have you ever listened to a debate where one person begins to argue against a point the other person never
made? This may sound like a strange situation, but it is actually
typical within the bounds of what may be considered the dark side of debate.

When we refer to a 'logical fallacy,' we are referring to logical flaws used by either those who are intellectually unaware or those who are deliberately deceptive toward the unaware. These fallacies are typically used to deceive the unawakened audience. On a larger scale they are regularly used by the Cabal and their media apparatus to psychologically manipulate the thoughts and opinions of the world's population to maintain global control.

The specific fallacy we are discussing
here is known as the Straw Man tactic. This fallacy can be a
particularly deceptive tactic in that it is not as blatant as other
fallacies, but before getting into detail, let's get some definition on the subject.

Straw Man

Description: Substituting a
person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated,
or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Example #1:Ted: Biological evolution is both a
theory and a fact.Edwin: That is ridiculous! How
can you possibly be absolutely certain that we evolved from pond
scum!Ted: Actually that is a gross
misrepresentation of my assertion. I never claimed we evolved
from pond scum. Unlike math and logic, science is based on
empirical evidence and, therefore, a scientific fact is something
that is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to
withhold provisional consent. The empirical evidence for the
fact that biological evolution does occur falls into this category.

Explanation: Edwin has ignorantly
mischaracterized the argument by a) assuming we evolved from pond
scum (whatever that is exactly), and b) assuming “fact” means
“certainty”.

Example #2:Zebedee: What is your view on the
Christian God?Mike: I don’t believe in any gods,
including the Christian one.Zebedee: So you think that we are here
by accident, and all this design in nature is pure chance, and the
universe just created itself?Mike: You got all that from me stating
that I just don’t believe in any gods?

Explanation: Mike made one claim:
that he does not believe in any gods. From that, we can deduce
a few things, like he is not a theist, he is not a practicing
Christian, Catholic, Jew, or a member of any other religion that
requires the belief in a god, but we cannot deduce that he believes
we are all here by accident, nature is chance, and the universe
created itself. Mike might have no beliefs about these things
whatsoever. Perhaps he distinguishes between “accident” and
natural selection, perhaps he thinks the concept of design is
something we model after the universe, perhaps he has some detailed
explanation based on known physics as to how the universe might have
first appeared, or perhaps he believes in some other supernatural
explanation. Regardless, this was a gross mischaracterization
of Mike’s argument.

Exception: At times, an opponent
might not want to expand on the implications of his or her position,
so making assumptions might be the only way to get the opponent to
point out that your interpretation is not accurate, then they will be
forced to clarify.

As stated, this is a particularly
deceptive tactic. In fact, the audience may not even know the
fallacy has been committed until long after it has had its effect.
In order to catch the Straw Man fallacy and acknowledge it, we must
be able to listen intently the debate or discussion taking place.
When a participant strays from the actual topic or gives an example
of the topic that does not accurately fit the topic, this tactic may be in use.

In recent time, we have actually seen
the tactic of Straw Man used quite frequently, though we may not have
noticed. Within the truth community, there has been a trend among
those who seem to be less awakened than others. Certain individuals, when
presented with a growing trend of alternative thought or opinion they
do not agree with, will arbitrarily accuse those who state the opinion of being in a cult.

The accuser will then proceed to preach about how unhealthy narrow-mindedness, group think, and unconscious
acquiescence is (which by itself, is true) when in reality, none of these apply to the situation
at all. The individual who held the popular idea may have come to their
conclusion on their own, but those accusing them of cult-mentality often ignore this possibility completely. Such accusers seem to accept no
other possibility and may even obsess over their own limited
perspective (thus assuming the form of their own accusation).

In reality, it is completely possible
for two or more people to independently observe an object, a situation, or a
condition therein and afterward, independently come to the same
conclusion. However, it seems that some disagree with this
possibility. Regardless, the possibility exists and it is only
responsible for us to consider all possibilities when attempting to find the truth to any
situation. This is one of many examples of the use of the Straw Man
tactic.

Often, the examples used in Straw Man
will be oversimplified, exaggerated, or will in some way,
misrepresent the position of the opponent to such a degree that it
distracts from the topic of debate. When we see this distraction from, and misrepresentation of the original topic, we know the likelihood of the Straw Man
tactic being used.

This is a tactic that typically only
works on people who are largely unaware of the world around them.
This fallacy may fool those who are inattentive to detail or those
who assume that everything they are presented by the establishment is
true. In such a state of mental apathy, it can be easy to miss the
important details of discussion that would reveal logical fallacies.
This is how we know the likelihood that these fallacies come from a
place of cognitive inattention and/or irresponsibility.

It is, of course, an honorable goal to
strive to increase our level of conscious awareness as well as our skills of listening, observation, critical thinking, and deductive reasoning. This way, we can be better suited to be logically
responsible and to maintain the quality of our own debating skills.
And as we do, we can be better able to help those around us maintain
and grow their own ability to observe and appreciate the world around
them.

Discerning the Mystery is a project I started to help wake the people up to their true potential of spiritual, emotional, and physical growth. It can be difficult work, but if I am successful, it is all worth it. If you enjoy what you read, please give this a like and share on Facebook and social media. Also, if you feel so inclined, please give a donation.

Feel free to send me an email and tell me what you think. If you have any suggestions or subjects you would like to see discussed, please let me know.